Statute of limitations on removal decisions, abolition of track switching, and certain issues regarding re-entry bans

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! It remains a completely central issue for us Moderates to get immigration to Sweden in order. Together with our coalition partners, we received a clear mandate from the voters in the 2022 election to carry out a paradigm shift in migration policy, and we are now overhauling the entire Swedish migration legislation.

What we have managed to implement so far has already yielded results. During 2024, last year, the number of asylum seekers to Sweden was under 10,000. That is to be compared with over 160,000 asylum seekers in 2015. Our work is bearing fruit, and Sweden stands out. Since this government took office in 2022, the number of asylum seekers has decreased by 42 percent, while during the same period in the entire European Union, it has actually increased by nearly 5 percent. When it comes to the number of granted asylum-related residence permits, the number granted protection and relatives to them is the lowest we can see in the measurements over time, that is, all the way since 1985.

Immigration to Sweden is decreasing while more and more highly qualified labor migrants, researchers, and students are being granted residence permits. Of the granted residence permits due to work, 58 percent go to highly qualified labor migrants. The proportion has increased by nearly 25 percent since 2022. The composition of immigration is thus changing at this moment. Sweden has moved from primarily being an asylum immigration country to once again being a country for primarily highly qualified labor. This is very good.

But we Moderates are still not satisfied. Immigration needs to decrease further so that we can manage the integration with all its difficulties and problems in the future.

Mr. Speaker! Our reform work continues at a high tempo. Today, another important step is taken to get the Swedish migration policy in order.

Firstly, we are now changing the rules for the prescription of deportation decisions. For a long time, Sweden has had an unsustainable regulatory framework regarding rejection and deportation decisions. We have had a system that has resulted in asylum seekers who have been denied their asylum application and thus received a deportation decision illegally being able to remain in Sweden and become part of the so-called shadow society, to then apply for asylum again once the four-year prescription period has expired. This has been possible because the prescription period, according to the current regulatory framework, began running even if one had not left Sweden.

Today, approximately every fourth asylum application comes from a person who has previously been denied their asylum application. Some have not only stayed in Sweden for four years; they have stayed illegally in Sweden for many more years and have thus abused the system a number of times with new applications after the four-year prescription periods have expired. It would be completely unreasonable to let this continue.

No one knows how many there are in the Swedish shadow society, but it could amount to as many as 100,000 people or even more. And we know that people risk suffering very badly in these shadow societies. Furthermore, there is a risk that people who pose a security threat are hiding here. So we cannot have that. A no must be a no. Deportation decisions must be followed and enforced – otherwise, the principles and the system for regulated immigration are undermined.

Mr. Speaker! Later this afternoon, this House will vote in favor of the Moderate-led government's proposition on amended rules for the prescription of deportation decisions or removal decisions, as it is formally referred to. It will now be required that the person who has applied for asylum and received a rejection first leaves the country in accordance with their deportation decision and that five years must have passed before a new asylum application can be submitted. If the deportation decision is accompanied by a re-entry ban that is in effect at this time, the deportation decision shall cease to apply only when the period for the re-entry ban expires.

With and including these changes, we now reduce the drivers to remain illegally in Sweden, which reduces the risk that more people are drawn into the shadow society. It also entails a more efficient use of the resources of the Swedish Migration Agency and the courts because the same asylum application does not become the subject of review several times. Furthermore, it creates better conditions for effective return work, which today must be interrupted when the prescription period for a deportation decision expires. The proposal is, in my opinion, well-balanced.

Mr. Speaker! Today's proposal also includes an opportunity to decide on longer re-entry bans if a foreigner has not left the country when the deadline for voluntary departure has expired. Today, it works so that a foreigner who receives a deportation decision shall, as a rule, be given a deadline within which they must leave the country. If they have not left the country within this deadline, they shall, as a rule, receive a re-entry ban, which according to current regulations shall always be set to one year.

With today's proposal, an individual assessment shall instead be made, and a foreigner shall be able to be issued a re-entry ban for up to five years. If the foreigner additionally poses a serious threat to public order and security, a longer re-entry ban can be issued. The protection of Sweden is a central starting point here.

Mr. Speaker! A third important proposal that we will make a decision on today is to abolish the system of so-called "path switching" (spårbyte). It shall no longer be possible to obtain a residence permit for work from within the country after a rejection of an asylum application. Family members of so-called path switchers shall also not be able to be granted residence permits without leaving the country.

The track change has meant that foreigners who have been denied their asylum application have been able to apply for and be granted residence permits for work without having to leave the country. A large number of those who have used the track change system have come from safe countries from which the applicants are rarely judged to have grounds for asylum. The track change system has been able to be exploited to come to Sweden, not because one needs protection but to gain access to the Swedish labor market. Such abuse entails unnecessary costs for, among other things, the asylum review, but above all, it reduces the legitimacy of both the asylum system and the system for labor migration. The possibility of track change can also appear as an extra chance to stay in Sweden, which can reduce the incentives to return after a no on an asylum application. Since the possibility of track change also creates strong incentives to get and keep a job, there is additionally a great risk that people are exploited and fare poorly on the labor market. This is something we cannot accept – we are changing it now.

Mr. Speaker! These three parts, which we are debating today and will make decisions on, are important further steps that Sweden is now taking to get the migration policy and migration legislation in order. But once again, we see a divided opposition. The Social Democrats, the Left Party, the Centre Party, and the Green Party are not in agreement either on this part of the migration policy – in fact, not on anything at all.

While the Social Democrats claim to want to pursue a strict migration policy, their companions in Vänsterpartiet, Centerpartiet, and Miljöpartiet want the exact opposite. They demand the rejection of proposal after proposal that the Moderate-led government puts forward – proposals that we put forward and are now implementing in order to reduce immigration to Sweden and get migration in order.

Regarding today's bill and report, Miljöpartiet, for example, will primarily reject everything we propose. Nothing shall be touched when it comes to the statutes of limitations, the rules on switching tracks, or the rules on re-entry bans. Status quo is obviously to be preferred – completely incomprehensible, in my opinion.

Vänsterpartiet does not want to introduce stricter prescription rules. The Left also apparently thinks it is a problem that individual assessments should be made regarding the length of the re-entry ban. They find it particularly problematic that a specific assessment should be made as to whether the person to be given a re-entry ban can pose a serious threat to public order and security and therefore should be given a longer ban on returning to Sweden. Here, Miljöpartiet has joined the Left's motion, and it is well, in fact, only these two parties that can take such a position in Swedish politics.

Centerpartiet, despite everything not to be forgotten, wants to expand the possibilities of obtaining residence permits by widening various valves and exceptions, something that would once again increase immigration to Sweden. The problems in the track-switching system are also completely ignored. It is proposed that it should remain pending further investigations.

Summa summarum from Vänstern, Miljöpartiet and Centerpartiet is the following: No and stop! Cancel the reform work as soon as possible regarding the migration policy, and roll back as much as possible!

But at the same time as they show their great dissatisfaction with the Moderate-led government's work to get immigration to Sweden in order, the Social Democrats sit still in the benches and give their silent consent to the paradigm shift we are now carrying out.

Mr. Speaker! As I have previously stated from this rostrum, I actually believe that it may even be the case that the Social Democrats are quite grateful that it is now a Moderate-led government governing migration policy, because the Social Democrats would never have been able to and will never be able to implement the changes they claim to want to see, as they are completely bound by these intended coalition partners.

Now, we Moderates, together with our coalition partners, have very successfully begun the work of reducing asylum-related immigration to Sweden. That work needs to continue, and the strict migration policy needs to be maintained over a long period so that we can manage the integration of those who have come and will come to Sweden.

My appeal to those voters who think the same, and who we know are in the vast majority in this country, is the following: Do not let the left, with the Social Democrats at the forefront, be given the chance to jeopardize this and once again create chaos in the Swedish migration legislation! Send them to the substitutes' bench even after the next election! Stefan Löfven's and Magdalena Andersson's governments, with a red-green mess as backing, have shown us what is otherwise to be expected.

Mr. Speaker! I also wish to move for approval of the government's proposition in this matter, that is, approval of the committee's proposal. Step by step, reform by reform, we are getting the Swedish migration policy in order. It has been said before, but it bears repeating: Now the Moderate-led government is solving the problems that the Social Democrats failed to manage during their eight years in power.

(Applause)

In this speech, Caroline Högström, Magnus Resare and Mats Sander (all M) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the changes in the prescription period, which have been presented by the government and supported by the Sweden Democrats, the Social Democrats, and to some extent the Centre Party, it is fundamentally about the government making it impossible to apply for asylum again after a rejection without first leaving the country. This means that a deportation decision can never be waived for those persons who cannot leave Sweden. This would entail severe humanitarian consequences, especially for children. They are the ones who are forced to live under fear, poverty, and vulnerability.

We are voting today on making people permanently undocumented in Sweden. It deepens and worsens the shadow society that the government says it wants to combat. Research, studies, knowledge, and experience in the field clearly show that asylum seekers do not return because one makes it harder for them here. The majority of referral bodies point out the same thing.

Not even the government's own investigation has been able to estimate to what extent this law can affect deportations. One simply cannot return many times. That is the case for asylum seekers in Sweden. We have tried that path before. The prescription period has also been extended before, and it did not provide the effect that the government now wants to see. We have tried repression against this target group, but it has never worked. It has been made harder and harder in rounds. It has not worked.

First you legislate to remove their livelihood. Then you legislate to remove their housing. Then you legislate that they shall not be allowed to study any more. Then you want a reporting society. You want healthcare staff to report undocumented people. It is attack after attack.

Where is the limit? When is one satisfied? Returning to the home country is for many no option, despite vulnerability and more difficult living conditions. My question to the member is: Where are they supposed to go?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! I and the Moderates stand up for regulated immigration and its principles. The person who seeks asylum in Sweden and receives a legally binding rejection decision on their asylum application – the person is therefore considered not to have grounds for protection – shall leave the country. In many cases, the rejection decision is first reviewed in several instances; those are the safety valves that exist when it comes to having it reviewed in a higher instance. The person who does not have the right to stay in Sweden shall leave the country.

So, an assessment has been made of the existing conditions and whether one has grounds for protection or not. If one does not, one must leave Sweden. It is not up to the individuals who have come to the country to decide whether they want to stay or not, but it is the state, Sweden, that makes that assessment. It is an entirely legally secure assessment with several different appellate instances that can review the decisions. That is the basis.

We have had a Swiss cheese of exceptions and loopholes in the system that we now need to rectify. Part of this is, therefore, that one should not be able to be in the country illegally in a shadow society with all that it entails. The shadow society also implies vulnerability for the children that Tony Haddou spoke about. That vulnerability, that people are in parallel societies, we must now come to terms with.

One should not be able to stay here for four years and then apply again on the same grounds and thereafter be able to do so in the same way multiple times. Therefore, we are now introducing these prescription rules, which shall reasonably only begin to apply once one has left the country – not after one has gone underground.

My counter-question to Tony Haddou is actually: Does the Left Party stand up for the principle of regulated immigration, or should it be up to the individual to choose for themselves whether they want to stay or not? Is it a decision that the Migration Agency or courts have actually made a recommendation? I would like to have a clarification from the Left Party here.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! What we hear here is fine rhetoric that has nothing at all to do with reality. I just described that people cannot return. That is the big problem. It is confirmed by the Swedish Migration Agency, the border police, and the police. People cannot return.

When the government now creates this system, people are pushed into undocumented status, into the shadow society and into vulnerability. One has no control over people at all.

With the four-year limit, one at least knows that the people are here. Now, one will not know it at all. It is deeply problematic that one exacerbates and deepens the shadow society.

The fine rhetoric about people leaving Sweden if they get a no – it doesn't work like that. That is not how reality looks. What is this target group supposed to do then? I was only told that they should leave the country. The previous government said that too, but the people remain anyway. The member described it themselves. They stay for four years and then apply again. Then they stay for another four years and apply once more, because they cannot leave the country. That is how it is.

One cannot obtain entry permits to, for example, Afghanistan. Does the Member perhaps have a return agreement with the Taliban in his back pocket? The Member knows himself that people cannot be deported there. The fine rhetoric does not hold up at all.

I received a question about regulated immigration. If one wants a job for returning and that people leave, we must have a legally secure process. All knowledge and research shows that people follow decisions if they are legally secure. But are they legally secure, as they are today, and there are legal decisions that cannot be followed, then they are naturally not followed. That is the reality.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! We have a complex regulatory framework regarding the Aliens Act and the Migration Act, but the basis is that it is Sweden that assesses whether the grounds for protection stated are adequate and acceptable in relation to the legislation we establish. If one is not considered to have grounds for protection according to Swedish legislation, which is based on international conventions and legislation and EU law, one must leave the country.

That one does not leave the country can also have to do with not wanting to participate in such a decision. It is another issue that we need to continue working on. But fundamentally, this is about us having people who receive a decision but do not accept it. They have received a decision, a decision that has gained legal force after review either at Migrationsverket or in a court of higher instance, but go underground to then return with new applications.

What Tony Haddou and the Left Party describe is, therefore, a completely different order, where the people themselves are to be allowed to choose. In that case, we would not need to have any review at all. Then one can, so to speak, decide for oneself whether one has legitimate reasons or not and thereafter say that one cannot be in the country or that one can be in this country.

So we cannot have that. That is not how the legally secure review works. That is not how a rule of law works. One also cannot simply say that everything is legally insecure in Sweden and that just by making it legally secure, people will accept the decisions. So that doesn't work either.

Now we are correcting what the Social Democrats, with the support of the Left Party, failed to achieve during eight years. We are now ensuring that we plug the holes in the Swiss cheese that have existed and address the discrepancies that have existed in the legislation – in order to make this better and more legally secure.

A prescription period therefore cannot begin to run because someone is hiding; instead, it should begin to run after one has left the country. I think that is completely reasonable.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Of all the persons who have applied for asylum again after four years have passed and their case has been prescribed, it is as many as an average of 24 percent, i.e., almost every fourth person, who are allowed to stay in Sweden after a new review.

When the Tidö parties and the Moderaterna say that a no is a no, reality shows that a no sometimes becomes a yes. And it does not happen rarely, but in every fourth case.

It could be that a person who, for example, has converted did not succeed sufficiently well in describing their internal process to the Swedish Migration Agency the first time. But after four years, when the person has learned the language better or simply gathered more evidence, everyone realizes that it would be life-threatening to deport this convert to the Taliban's Afghanistan.

The government's bill means that approximately every fourth undocumented person will live in the shadow society despite having grounds for protection that would have led to a residence permit under current legislation. I would therefore like to ask the Moderaterna: How do you think Sweden should treat these persons, who risk persecution if they are deported?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have great respect for the fact that the examinations of asylum applications are not the easiest. It is complex material. It concerns individuals' own stories and other types of evidence that one needs to present. It is not easy in any way. But we have an order in Sweden where Migrationsverket is the first instance, and after that, the applicant has the opportunity to have their case reviewed in court.

We shall safeguard this fundamentally rule-of-law-based order. We shall not question it. That is why we believe it is important that when one has received a rejection of their asylum application and thus does not have sufficient grounds for protection to be granted a status or a residence permit, they shall leave the country. We must not have the order that we have in Sweden today, where one goes underground and into the shadow society with all that it entails – all the risks it entails and all the vulnerability it entails. We must move away from that.

It could be about up to 100,000 people or even more who are in the shadow society in Sweden, who have illegally gone underground. So we cannot have that.

What I do not hear from the Green Party's side is how we are to resolve this. The Green Party thinks it is better that one stays and then has their case reviewed again and again and again. One is therefore not to follow the Swedish state's decision, but instead a shadow society should flourish. So we cannot have that. We cannot handle people's vulnerability that way. That is why we are now ensuring that the regulations are tightened.

We see that in 2023, there was a prescribed deportation decision at the bottom when it concerned 25 percent of all applications for asylum. That is to say, they had returned to apply again.

Of course, in that sense, things change. New conditions can arise. We have enforcement regulations and other things that ensure there is absolutely always a type of ultimate protection. But we must handle this in better ways than by letting the shadow society flourish.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Fundamentally, it is a reasonable position that one should return if one receives a rejection, but if we look at reality, we see that there is a large group of people who cannot return. Recently, I heard about a person who had traveled to Afghanistan after a rejection, but they did not let him in. The Taliban did not want this Westernized person in their country, so the person is back with us in Sweden.

We have many people who do not receive passports and who, for other practical reasons, remain year after year after year. They should not have to live in the shadow society. They should be able to get residence permits. They should be able to work. They should be able to have a normal life with basic human rights and dignity.

It is, as said, also approximately one quarter of those seeking asylum after prescription who are granted residence permits. The Migration Agency or the courts conclude that these individuals need protection. Those people, we in Miljöpartiet also think, should not live in the shadow society.

If we remove both those who should be receiving protection and those who have execution barriers of any kind, the shadow society will decrease dramatically. I think the Moderaterna don't really have an answer there, but rather one hopes that this group will automatically disappear if life is made worse and harder for people living in undocumented status. But that is not how reality looks – for a long series of reasons.

We in Miljöpartiet have several proposals for solutions to this, which the Moderaterna are rejecting today.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that the shadow society decreases if one introduces amnesties and lets everyone stay who wants to stay. It is a quite simple solution. It has been raised by Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet, which, as it turns out, shall constitute a basis for the Socialdemokraterna when they are to try to form a government.

The principles they want to introduce would undermine the regulatory framework and the principles of regulated immigration. That is what is the alternative. That is what you hear if you listen to how they are going to deal with the shadow society.

We want to address the shadow society by ensuring that those people who have received a rejection also leave the country. It is clear that there are safety valves in our legislation regarding obstacles to enforcement. It is entirely reasonable that they remain, as new conditions or other circumstances can arise during the time for removal or after the deportation decision. But the person who has received a legally binding deportation decision shall, as a general rule, leave the country, and we must speed up that process.

We must reduce the shadow society. We will never, Mr. Speaker, contribute to reducing it by giving up regulated immigration and essentially allowing the individual to choose for themselves whether they should be allowed to stay in the country or not. Sweden must decide after a legal review and an assessment of the grounds for protection that are stated.

These must be the fundamentals. These must be the principles. That is why we think this is relevant, and that is why we will make a decision by a broad majority in this chamber this afternoon. It works now, because it is a Moderate-led government presenting this proposal. We are not constrained by either Miljöpartiet or Vänsterpartiet. We will change the rules on prescription periods. We will change the rules on re-entry bans. And we will finally remove the corrupt system of track switching. I look forward to that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I have on several occasions been criticized by Member Wärnick for using hyperbole in the migration debate. I can agree that we need to have a sensible migration debate; that is what is best for Sweden. Therefore, I am very disappointed when the Member stands and, in my opinion, directly lies in the speaker's chair.

It is said that the Center Party completely ignores the criticism that has been voiced against the system of track-switching. Therefore, I would like to read out our position in our reservation: "The system of track-switching has in recent years been criticized, for example, for contributing to the asylum system being exploited by persons who do not have grounds for asylum seeking asylum for the purpose of making a track-switch. The criticism of the system of track-switching must be taken seriously."

The Center Party, therefore, sees the criticism. The Moderates, however, choose time and again not to solve the problems that exist with various systems. Instead, they more or less scrap the systems entirely. The Center Party believes that Sweden is at its best when Sweden works. More people need to contribute so that school, healthcare, and elderly care can become better, so that we can upgrade the Swedish defense, and so that the trains can run on time. But regarding the labor immigration, changing tracks – time and again, the Moderates make it harder for companies to recruit foreign labor.

My question is therefore: What is the Moderaternas answer to the companies that are now seriously worried that the Moderaterna are closing door after door for the recruitment of foreign labor?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! The system of track switching has been criticized for a very long time, just as Member Cato also describes. It is a system that is not reasonable to maintain, and therefore we are now phasing it out. The main rule when seeking to come to Sweden to work shall therefore be that one applies for a residence permit for this outside Sweden's borders and then enters Sweden after having been granted a permit to travel in.

We are now restructuring the entire labor migration policy and moving from low-skilled labor to high-skilled. That is precisely what we see as needed in Sweden. We have very many people in our country – hundreds of thousands – who are unemployed and who, in the first instance, could take the more low-skilled jobs, rather than us bringing in people who live on the other side of the world to perform those jobs here. I think that is a reasonable starting point.

What Jonny Cato says next is: Yes, it is a problem, but the problem is not solved by removing the system. Leave it, and investigate it further!

I do not think one can have the attitude that one formulates the problems and then hands them over to someone else to solve – not in the way proposed in the bill, i.e., through an abolition of the system, but in some completely different way. The Centre Party does not indicate in any way in its motion or in its request how it would work.

The Center Party's portal claim, so to speak, is a no to the government's proposal regarding track switching. They say no to abolishing it. Then they write: "We would therefore rather see the government, in a first step, review how the system of track switching can be redesigned to become more purposeful." What does that mean?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! It becomes somewhat comical when a representative for the Tidö parties says that one must not investigate things, considering that it is often the only answer we get in this chamber – that things should be investigated and looked into.

It was, however, a good clarification, if I am honest, regarding the desire to shift from track change to labor immigration. It was also a clarification that one does not want labor at all for occupations where the wage does not exceed 35,000 kronor. It is said that it is not needed. But that is not quite the business community's view. It is not quite the view of Swedish companies. On the contrary, there is now a huge concern all over the country and across a wide range of industries because labor is needed – including foreign labor.

The Moderates' solution is that people who are already in Sweden should take those jobs. But look at the list of bills from the Ministry of Employment – it is only one bill during 2025! It is not the case that more people become ready to take these jobs because the Moderates wish it. One must make efforts so that these people become employable.

What is being done now is that, system by system, the possibilities for companies to recruit foreign labor are being pushed away, while simultaneously nothing is being done to make more people employable. Those who are hit hardest by this are Swedish, honest entrepreneurs – those whom the Moderaterna say they protect the most. It is they who are being hit now.

One needs to take the criticism seriously. It is not a matter of one industry or two industries, but across the entire Swedish business community, one truly feels a concern that the Moderate-led government repeatedly shuts down the opportunities to recruit foreign labor – which is often what makes Sweden function.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! We shall refrain from making this a labor market policy debate, but in connection with what Jonny Cato is now stating, I would still like to say that what we are doing from the Moderate-led government's side is to lower the tax on labor. We will introduce a benefit ceiling and an activity requirement in the social assistance in order to increase the incentives to take a job and enter the labor market.

How is Jonny Cato supposed to conduct that type of bourgeois politics with his gang in the chamber? There are no conditions for it at all. Jonny Cato stands there in the middle of nowhere and says he has solutions for everything, but he has no way to achieve them. Welcome back to the bourgeoisie when you have sobered up, Jonny Cato!

What we say about the labor immigration is that we are now shifting it from low-skilled to high-skilled labor, and in that context, we think it is reasonable to remove the system with track-switching which has been very problematic and has received significant criticism.

Jonny Cato mocks the fact that we are investigating many things. Yes, we had to investigate many things because the government Jonny Cato supported did not have those types of investigations underway or the preparatory material required to reform the Swedish migration system. Therefore, we have appointed these investigations. Of the investigation proposals that are now coming in, this is one that we have now handled very quickly and which will become Swedish law on April 1.

To these investigations, we have given directives that we have agreed upon. What is the outcome to be? What is the direction of this? It is therefore, Mr. Speaker, that I question the Center Party when one says "Do not remove the passing lane – do something else!" but does not describe what that "something else" is. Not with a single word is it described what that "something else" is, but rather that the system should be reviewed so that it becomes more purposeful. We are therefore to continue having this incorrect, bad system in order to review it – without any kind of direction. That is not serious politics.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! In view of what we are going to vote on today, I thought I would begin with a short story that was sent to me yesterday.

"The prescription period gave both me an opportunity to start over, and the Swedish Migration Agency a chance to make the right decision and understand my story. It saved me from being stuck in limbo, from living for too long in fear and without a future. It was far from a fair solution; to live for four years without rights, always with the fear of being taken, was a taxing struggle. But for me, it still became the difference between getting a new chance and disappearing from the system forever."

But before I had the chance, my worst fear became reality. Outside the city library, in the middle of the day, the plainclothes police arrived. They arrested me and took me to the detention center, because I was living so-called 'illegally' in Sweden, and carried a deficient deportation decision.

In there, behind closed doors and windows, I was not a human being, just a matter waiting to be written off. Time did not exist. The days were a haze of checks, guards, and locked doors. Every breath was a temporary stay of execution, a pause before everything would end. That uncertainty burned in my chest. No one said what would happen. Would they take me to the airport tomorrow? Next week? And what awaited me in Afghanistan? Would the Taliban hang me to death in an open square?

But there was the statute of limitations, a flawed, slow, unjust path, but the only one that existed. It allowed me to eventually have my case reviewed. Without it, I might never have sat here today.

Now the government wants to remove the prescription period, the only possibility, the only spark of hope in a nightmare that is already someone's everyday life. They want more people to be forced to live in fear and uncertainty, as I and many others have done, but without an end, without a chance to move forward.

Tomorrow, the Riksdag will vote on the proposal. If it passes, many will be stuck in an eternal limbo. They cannot leave Sweden, but they are also not given a chance to stay. This is not just a political decision – it is extinguishing hope for people who have nowhere else to turn.

No human should be forced to live a life that must not exist. No one should have to hide, breathe in the shadows, count the years in the hope of one day being seen. But if the Riksdag votes through the proposal tomorrow, it will be exactly that they condemn people on the run to – an existence without a future, without rights, without hope.

Mr. Speaker! I will return to the prescription period, which we are to vote on today, but I think this story puts its finger on very much. Above all, that people on the run need protection and safety. I would like to see a more just and humane migration policy where we hold the right of asylum high. I want it to be possible to seek protection in Sweden from war and oppression and that the asylum seeker shall have their grounds for protection examined in a legally secure and thorough process.

Those who receive protection shall also be given good conditions, rights, and opportunities to be included in society. That policy includes, among other things, permanent residence permits, a strong right to live with one's family, and that one is allowed to be reunited with one's children here. It is an order that creates security for the future, and it facilitates for people to enter society.

Instead of providing protection and security and ensuring that people enter society, we instead have a government today that actively focuses on eroding the right of asylum and deterring people from seeking to come here. The government is worsening and destroying integration in Sweden. This constant focus on deterrence and worsening the situation for people on the run has led to an unmanageable and deteriorated migration legislation and thus a deteriorated legal certainty.

The current legislation we are to vote on today contains several proposals that are a continuation in the same direction, that is to say, a continuation of the government's inhumane and legally insecure migration policy. What we are to vote on today concerns, among other things, the time for which a deportation decision shall be valid. Today, a deportation decision is valid for four years. After that, the decision ceases to apply, and it is possible to apply for asylum again.

It is an incredibly important arrangement that one should be able to apply for asylum again. This regulatory framework was introduced for the purpose of protecting people from having to live under the threat of deportation for a long period due to decisions that cannot be enforced. They have, therefore, usually not done anything wrong; rather, it is about circumstances outside of their control. There must then be some kind of safety valve. It is at least a small protection to avoid people – especially children – living in a state of undocumented status and uncertainty, even if it is for far too long.

Now the government parties, the Sweden Democrats, the Social Democrats and to some extent the Centre Party want the period of validity for a deportation decision to be extended to five years and that the deportation decision shall apply as long as the asylum seeker remains in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! Making it impossible to apply for asylum again after a rejection without first leaving the country means that a deportation decision can never be waived for those people who cannot leave Sweden. In practice, the proposal we are legislating on today will mean that deportation decisions for very many people will never be waived. This would entail severe humanitarian consequences, especially for children.

Today we are voting on making people permanently undocumented. Children in particular will be affected. They will lose the possibility of being granted a residence permit due to particularly compelling circumstances if this is prescribed, because it will no longer be possible to apply for it again. It is the only possibility for children who have grown up in Sweden to be able to stay after a long time here. That small possibility is now being taken away from them. They may not stay, but they also cannot leave. They are forced into a lawless limbo, and children in that situation will live under dreadful conditions.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that we have a responsibility for people who are already here and who have ended up caught in the middle due to populist refugee policy shifts over the years. I think we really should take that responsibility, but this government does not. This is an unjust and inhumane proposal, which will not only push already vulnerable people further away from society but will also lead to more being exploited on the labor market and through that to exploitation and human trafficking.

The question is also where people are supposed to go. What are they supposed to do? This proposal will only lead to more people being left undocumented in Sweden. This is a policy that increases vulnerability and crime in the labor market and that causes children to suffer terribly. We have tried this path. We have tried repression against exactly this target group, and it has never worked.

First you legislated that we should take away their livelihood. Then you legislated that we should take away their housing, and then that they should not be allowed to study any more. After that, you wanted a reporting society: that healthcare staff should report them and that teachers should report children at school.

What is the next step in all these attacks? Where is the limit? When will you be satisfied? All these attacks – for what? It is already horrific and very bad both for the people who are directly affected and for society as a whole.

You think that more will return, but for many, returning is a dead end. This policy does not work, and it has not worked either. The simple reason is that many people cannot return and that for others, returning is associated with death. Or is it that the Moderaterna or perhaps the Sverigedemokraterna want to sign return agreements with the Taliban? Do you want that? Have you found a state for the stateless, or do you want to break international conventions?

Regardless, Mr. Speaker, it is the case that many who are denied their application cannot be returned. The reasons why people end up in situations where they cannot be deported vary, and if there had been some kind of reflection, knowledge, or understanding on the part of the government, we could have seriously ensured a reduction of the shadow society instead of deepening and worsening it.

The government's own investigator for this proposal himself highlights a number of factors, outside both the individual's and the executive authority's control, which affect the possibility of deporting asylum seekers. It can be everything from the receiving countries' willingness to accept their citizens, the absence of so-called readmission agreements, the spread of new armed conflicts and natural and environmental disasters to major disease outbreaks.

Add, for example, stateless persons who cannot be deported, those who lack a country of destination and entry permit, those from a state that is unwilling to allow citizens to return, or those whose citizenship has been revoked, and so on. It can also conflict with international conventions we have signed or simply be far too dangerous.

All these factors will continue to determine the possibilities of carrying out the deportation, regardless of whether the government's proposal is approved or not. The difference is that people instead become permanently undocumented and then become hopeless in this system.

Instead of handling this fact by proposing opportunities for residence permits for these people, this government and the previous government have only come up with several proposals on how the return shall increase through tougher measures and more difficult living conditions for the group.

It has not worked. Despite that, the government proposes that the policy should continue and be reinforced with worsened living conditions and restricted rights for both asylum seekers and those who are denied, as well as with worsened opportunities to obtain residence permits for those seeking protection here. The obvious consequence of such a policy is a larger group of undocumented people living under even more difficult conditions without opportunities to influence their own situation. The shadow society deepens and worsens. This policy has, as stated, been tested in several stages, and the only thing it has led to is increased vulnerability.

This is pointed out and confirmed by many referral bodies. There is solid research, knowledge, and experience and several studies that show that people do not leave the country just because one worsens life for them here. For example, it is shown in the Red Cross report Rejection of asylum application 2023 – Experiences of living as an asylum seeker in Sweden that none of the persons interviewed have perceived a return to the home country as a possible alternative, despite vulnerability and difficult living conditions in Sweden – none! This picture is confirmed by several referral bodies and the Bar Association as well as by other studies.

Mr. Speaker! The Government's proposal that a deportation decision shall apply to the asylum seeker for as long as this person remains in Sweden and thereafter for five years is based on the idea we heard about here earlier: in migration policy, a yes must be a yes and a no must be a no. It has become somewhat of the Government's mantra. It sounds naturally understandable, but it is not that simple. Reality does not look like that.

I have just described reasons why asylum seekers cannot return. Furthermore, asylum applications are reassessed so that a no can become a yes. So was it for all those Afghan girls and women who received deportation decisions but who, overnight, were allowed to stay. Such is the reality. Circumstances change. Reality is something else than rhetoric. The reality of the asylum seekers is something that politicians in this chamber either have a lack of understanding for, or they simply do not want to know about.

Earlier in the debate, we heard that an amnesty would undermine the system. But that is not the case. No system has been undermined by girls and women from Afghanistan being granted amnesty. A rejection of an asylum application does not necessarily mean that the asylum seeker does not have a need for protection, but only that they have not succeeded in making their need for protection probable at the time of the assessment.

The government writes in its proposal that a problem with applying for asylum again after four years is that it can lead to false hopes for the individual that a residence permit may be granted further ahead. There are some studies regarding this. But it has also been shown that 21–29 percent of all those who apply for some form of residence permit after the four-year period are granted one. Over time and due to the circumstances, their no became a yes.

Even more important is that asylum decisions must be made on legally secure grounds. If the government wants a legitimate return system, it must be built on a legitimate asylum system. That legitimacy lies in the legal security of the asylum decisions, and far too many are not legally secure. This is shown, not least by all the reports on the lack of legal security in the asylum decisions.

For example, the National Audit Office recently concluded that there are major legal certainty deficiencies in the Swedish Migration Agency's processing. At the same time, it is permitted for legal decisions that cannot even be implemented to be made. It is a problem that decisions continue to be made on deportation to countries where it is not even possible to deport to.

Overall, this risks undermining the legal certainty in the asylum process even further. It is not the case that all asylum decisions are made on legally secure grounds, and obviously, not all decisions can be enforced. Lawyers and human rights organizations have repeatedly highlighted these deficiencies, but the government does nothing. The only ones affected by this are the asylum seekers, who are pushed into undocumented status and vulnerability.

Mr. Speaker! With the government's policy, people in need of protection will no longer be able to receive it to the same extent because one only gets one chance in a process described as a lottery or as passing through the eye of a needle. People will, to a large extent, remain in Sweden despite not receiving it.

Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I also want to say a few words about the government abolishing the system of track switching. Vänsterpartiet also opposes that, as appears in several motions. Here, however, I move for approval of reservation 2.

We are critical of the developments that have occurred in recent years and which have resulted in worsened opportunities for asylum seekers to work. These deteriorations also mean poorer opportunities to enter society and contribute to it. The proposal to abolish the possibility of switching tracks goes in the same direction. Furthermore, it is completely unreasonable that people who have established themselves on the labor market need to leave the country and their employment and apply for a residence permit from abroad.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to extend a big and special thank you to all those who continue to work for the undocumented and their rights, who care, who provide direct support and advice, and who are there when someone's child needs safety and care. We see you. You have politicians on your side.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today, two issues are being handled that the Social Democratic government wanted to resolve. One concerns that the prescription period for a deportation decision shall only begin to apply once the person in question has left the country. The other concerns an abolition of so-called "track changes" (spårbyten). The first issue is a remnant from the 1989 Aliens Act, when the rules were tightened. The second is a legacy of the alliance government's migration policy.

Regarding the prescription period, it is obvious that a four-year period from the time the judgment became final is too short a time. It has led to unreasonable consequences when people in the country have sought asylum three times and received rejections an equal number of times. It is completely obvious that, therefore, a need for protection has not existed. But through appeals and subsequent withholding of deportation, people have been able to stay in the country. Many times, they have been motivated by reaching the prescription period.

This has been a recipe for building a shadow society and for increasing segregation in society. Many of these people have been ruthlessly exploited by unscrupulous employers and other criminals. EBO has helped to reinforce this segregation. That we are now taking further steps toward breaking the segregation is welcome, if belated. Regarding EBO, the government unfortunately has not managed to go all the way, which is regrettable.

Mr. Speaker! The possibility of switching tracks has undermined the legitimacy of the migration system. If one seeks out Sweden for asylum reasons and it then turns out that there are no grounds to stay, it is not reasonable that one, from within the country, is allowed to test other ways to stay. It creates an imbalance, and it is also not fair in relation to all those who have not come here for asylum reasons. In the long run, it causes confidence in both the asylum immigration system and the labor migration system to decrease. This is the reason why the parties in the labor market are very clear that it is reasonable and good that switching tracks is abolished.

For us Social Democrats, the legitimacy of the migration policy is very important. We want order and structure. That is good both for integration and for the labor market, and for breaking the segregation. Therefore, we are happy today that another one of the investigations we commissioned is being addressed and that proposals that we have championed are becoming a reality.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! Now we stand here in the speaking chairs again, Ola Möller and I, and once again I intend to ask Ola Möller how he is going to make this work. How will Ola Möller be able to put together a government basis with what we have just heard in previous exchanges between me and Tony Haddou and Annika Hirvonen? They essentially described a situation where court decisions and legally binding decisions from the Migration Agency should be seen more as a recommendation rather than something to follow, for example, leaving the country if one receives a no and being integrated if one receives a yes. How can it be a red-green majority government or a Social Democratic government with such a basis, should misfortune strike after the next election, that does not return to, reverses, or worsens the order in the migration legislation that we are now trying to establish?

I think the exchanges were clarifying. There is a bottomless rift between what the Social Democrats say will happen and what the Left Party and the Green Party want to happen.

Again: How is this going to work?

It is also worth noting that Ola Möller's friends have requested a right of reply to him. Tony Haddou and Annika Hirvonen thus want to hold their intended government partner to account.

Again: Please give an answer, Ola Möller!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am fascinated by TikTok. It is funny with the algorithms, because when you have gone in and watched a video, you get stuck in that flow. There is a funny flow with parrots that argue with people. The parrots bite people on the toes and other things, and it is very funny. Viktor Wärnick's performance in this chamber reminds me of this flow. There is a lot of parrot biting someone on the toes, because the only issue and criticism Viktor Wärnick obviously has is that we are having a hard time in government negotiations.

It may be difficult, but before Viktor Wärnick attacks the Social Democrats' potential government negotiations, he must answer the same question. This week, the Sverigedemokraterna's deputy party leader Henrik Vinge clearly declared that Sverigedemokraterna shall be in the next government. I respect that. The problem is only that the Liberalerna have decided that Sverigedemokraterna shall not do so. This means that if neither the Liberalerna nor Sverigedemokraterna change their minds, Viktor Wärnick has no government alternative. Furthermore, some Social Democrats have written articles about how the Socialdemokraterna and Moderaterna should rule together in such a situation.

I am of the opinion that one must first have an election result. After that, one can negotiate about the government. In the best of worlds, the Social Democrats become so large that we do not need to have other parties in the government. Then we can negotiate with the Moderates on migration policy, with the Left on housing policy, and with other parties on other policies. That is a good scenario.

Let us begin with Viktor Wärnick explaining how his government is to come together before he demands that the Social Democrats deliver answers. His own coalition partners have clearly declared that it does not come together.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that it is painful for the Social Democrats to be asked questions about this, and it is painful because one cannot provide answers. One will, therefore, not be able to present before the election what is happening with the migration policy, even though it is an issue that the Swedish people consider relevant and important. A large majority thinks that it is important that this paradigm shift is carried out, but if one votes for the Social Democrats, one will, therefore, not be able to know if their promised strict migration policy becomes a reality.

We in the coalition parties agree on the policy issues and what we want to implement. Here, the game is not the fundamental thing, but that we want to achieve something that is better for Sweden.

I perceive that Vänsterpartiet, Miljöpartiet and Centerpartiet also have a lot of issue-specific proposals in migration policy. For example, Vänsterpartiet wants to return to how it was in 2015 when over 160,000 came in during one year, which put an enormous pressure on Swedish society.

Regarding Ola Möller's dodging, I will continue to ask the question, because it is relevant to get answers on how this will proceed. I believe that these non-answers show what kind of mess we would see after the next election if Ola Möller and the Socialdemokrater get the chance to seize Rosenbad again. It will, in fact, take precedence over keeping order in the migration policy.

Mr. Speaker! Let us look briefly at the policy areas in the migration policy. Are they in agreement on anything at all? Should Sweden have temporary or permanent residence permits? Here they are completely in disagreement. Should the number of quota refugees be maintained at today's level or become many more? They are completely in disagreement. Should own housing for asylum seekers be abolished or maintained? They are completely in disagreement. Should the maintenance requirement for family immigration be tightened? Here they do not agree with each other. Should the EU implement return hubs outside the union's borders? Here they do not agree with each other. Should stricter rules be established so that more who do not have grounds for asylum actually return home? Here they are completely in disagreement.

I will continue to ask the question, and I hope that Ola Möller makes a new attempt to answer.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am completely convinced that Viktor Wärnick understands that there will be negotiations after the election regarding the issues the government base is to move forward with. That is exactly what the Tidögänget did. They chose four areas where they delivered proposals and left others aside. It is a possible solution if it is the Left Party, the Green Party, and the Centre Party we are to cooperate with. If we cooperate with the Moderates, other areas will be left out.

Broad collaborations are good for Sweden. They provide stability, which we may need when the current head of government hires people who are subsequently prosecuted following Säpo investigations and the like. Sweden needs stability, and I believe the Social Democrats are significantly better suited than the Moderates to provide that to the country.

Speaking of games, I was reminded of the old football player Gary Lineker. Let me recite something he has said: Swedish migration policy has since 2015 been a rather simple game.

The Left, the Green Party, and the Centre Party have argued with the Moderates, the Sweden Democrats, and the Christian Democrats about implementing the Social Democrats' migration policy. That is de facto what has happened since 2015. It was we who changed the policy. It was we who secured the migration agreement. Every political reform the Tidögänget has made in the migration policy area, apart from the population registration of Ukrainians, is based on investigations that the Social Democrats commissioned. It is our policy that you are implementing. It is what comes next, with informant systems and other nonsense, that is the big problem. It is not strict migration policy. It is foolish migration policy, which has even made the Sweden Democrats back down on certain points.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is strange that it still comes as a shock to the government parties that Vänstern and Miljöpartiet do not agree with the Socialdemokraterna on migration policy.

Unlike previous speakers, I shall stick to the substantive issues, and I request a clarification from the Social Democrats.

The then Social Democratic government appointed an inquiry, the so-called Limb investigation, to map out decisions on deportations that cannot be executed for practical reasons beyond the individual's control. The investigation showed that the requirements for asylum seekers to prove that there are practical obstacles to return are unreasonably high and that the possibilities of being allowed to stay in Sweden due to practical obstacles are very small. The investigation proposed, among other things, a clarification of the legislation so that those whose deportation decisions cannot be executed due to reasons outside the individual's control are granted residence permits. It is also a legal and reasonable way to avoid throwing people into undocumented status and exploitation.

The Social Democrats did not want to move forward with the proposal to make it easier for asylum seekers to obtain residence permits when they cannot be deported and the reason lies outside of their control. Instead, they are forced into undocumented status, and year after year we legislate to make life harder for them.

Since the Social Democrats chose to bury their investigation, I ask: Do the Social Democrats have any policy to ensure that people do not get stuck in limbo and lawlessness?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Tony Haddou for the question and for its substance. In a previous debate here in the chamber, the Speaker's Bureau pointed out that one should stick to the issues and not engage in game theories and the like. That Viktor Wärnick often slipped into that was quite obvious in both his speech and the exchanges of remarks.

When it comes to the insecure existence of undocumented people, the Social Democrats envision a two-stage rocket and a coherent system. If we abolish EBO and bring people into a good process from the beginning through reception centers, and then, when they have been denied, return centers keep the chain together. This means that the people who are denied have housing and maintenance. The children can go to school and so on at the return centers. These can be developed; I am the first to point that out. That is one idea.

The second thought is about working on getting people motivated to return. We know that what is effective when it comes to returning is motivational interviews. That is what the evidence shows. If you have people in a coherent system and can work with them in that way, it becomes easier.

Then there are occasional difficult cases where it will be difficult to deport people due to circumstances in the home country. These people will nevertheless be able to have a bearable existence in Sweden at the return centers, where we have control, where we do not increase segregation, and where we do not create shadow societies and parallel societies. It is the architecture of the system.

I think it is positive that the Social Democratic government appointed inquiries to clarify and look at the issues and try to find ways forward. It is a conflict of objectives – absolutely – but this is our answer. It will be a coherent process that I believe in.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I hear the rhetoric, but the problem that remains is that people will still be living in limbo. It is a serious problem.

During the time that has passed since the investigation's proposals were placed in a filing cabinet in the Government Offices, families who have been in Sweden for 10, 13 or 16 years have not received residence permits and have also not been able to be deported. It is a serious problem. Are they to be in return centers year after year? It is not tolerable at all. What the investigation showed very clearly was that people in these situations should be granted residence permits. It is not more difficult than that.

There are target groups who are granted residence permits in several other European countries but who do not get them in Sweden. For example, for people from Afghanistan, the approval rate is 90–100 percent in other European countries, while it is barely 60 percent in Sweden. It is imagined that these people should live in return centers and so on, but that is not reasonable.

Here is a completely finished legislative proposal on reforming the legislation. People live year after year in limbo and cannot do anything about their situation at all. Instead of having this waste of people's lives, we can give them residence permits. It is much easier, it is better for society, and it is better for the individuals.

Why do the Social Democrats not agree to this? It was their own investigation, and it was clear and explicit: It will be better for all parties.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Tony Haddou! Circumstances can change. Iraq is a country where we have succeeded in securing an extradition agreement, thanks to the EU's work, the previous Social Democratic government's groundwork and the current government's completion. I think that is absolutely excellent.

Circumstances can change over time, and countries change. Afghanistan is such an example. It was possible to deport to there previously, but it is not possible now. Hopefully, it will change in the future.

It is about a conflict of objectives. If we have a system that implies that people who come here and can keep out of sight sooner or later get to stay, it will mean that many people will take the chance to come to Sweden to try to do this. Now we have a system where it does not pay off. It means that fewer people who obviously cannot prove their grounds for asylum will seek out Sweden.

If there are other countries where people have greater success, it is entirely possible for them to go there. It is not Sweden alone that should bear this. We have taken an enormous responsibility here. I think that migration policy needs to be handled at the EU level. If asylum seekers seek out other countries in the EU and receive asylum there, then they have received asylum. It is not necessarily Sweden that should bear the entire burden.

In my world, it is like this: We have no problems with cooperating with different parties in migration policy. We appointed the Migration Committee to get broad support, and we got the policy through here, sometimes with the Liberals. The Moderates and even some Green Party members voted for it.

I mean that when we work broadly in the Riksdag, we can find a migration policy with a direction that most here can essentially agree on. Then there are the follies that the current government is engaged in, but the main part of the current migration policy is the Socialdemokraternas proposals.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I took the floor to speak about the children who sometimes are even born in Sweden, who live here year after year in limbo and whose parents have not been granted asylum but have also not been able to return.

Almost two years ago, I met such a family. Their boy, Murhaf Hamid – who set a record with his marigold sales – was then twelve years old, born in Sweden and raised in the Swedish Migration Agency's housing. He had been moved from southern Sweden to northern Sweden, western Sweden and eastern Sweden and had lived in almost our entire elongated country, but he had never had a personal identity number and had never had the chance to access all the rights that other children have. The Migration Agency had the family with them the whole time but could never deport them back to the country they came from.

How long do the Social Democrats think children who are born and raised in Sweden should live in limbo in that way, when the reality is that Migrationsverket is not succeeding in deporting them?

In the government's bill, which the Social Democrats are voting yes to today, the possibility of obtaining a residence permit on humanitarian grounds is taken away from children like Murhaf Hamid – children who have lived their entire lives in Sweden and had their entire schooling here. Sweden is the only country they know. How do the Social Democrats view these children's situation?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have explained this quite clearly in my speech and in my answers to Tony Haddou's question. They may live in the return centers, and we try to make life there as bearable as possible.

We cannot have an arrangement where the entire status for families who have come to Sweden changes when their children are born here. We do not want that arrangement. That is the case. I am completely clear that it is a conflict of objectives. I believe everyone feels that conflict of objectives. There is probably no one in this chamber who does not realize the problem, but one must weigh different values against each other.

For me, the child's perspective becomes important when children are in the care of society, regardless of the form. Then we must make the best of it. They have a right to school, healthcare, and so on. We will take care of the children, but they will likely not become citizens or receive residence permits in this country.

That is how we must work, but the government's policy does not align with, for example, the aid policy. It is about reducing the problems far away so that people can go there and receive help, but there the government's management of development aid has completely failed, for example in Iraq. They are destroying the opportunities to create good living environments in parts of Iraq. It looks the way it does in that country.

I understand that Annika Hirvonen thinks it is very difficult to hear, but my answer is that the children shall have a bearable existence in the return centers. And we shall do everything we can to find a bearable solution so that the children can return with their families home to the country where they live or shall live.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Is the Social Democrats' answer, then, that one can be born and die at the Migration Agency? If the Migration Agency never succeeds in enforcing the deportation decisions, we could eventually have generations who have lived their lives in limbo. The reality is that real lives are unfolding while time passes. Of course, things happen that change for the better and for the worse in the outside world. But the fact is that we have thousands of people for whom the years pass. An entire childhood passes, and one never gains access to the right to a normal life.

I have met children who are 13 years old and who tell me: My biggest dream is to get a personal identity number! When I was 13 years old, I hardly knew what a personal identity number was. They also want to be able to go on the class trip. They want to be able to start studying at university and college when they have finished upper secondary school.

Does Ola Möller really mean that the Social Democrats' policy is that if one cannot return to their home country, then one should be able to live an entire life at the Swedish Migration Agency's return center?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! That is the conclusion, yes.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 7.

A migration policy that combines humanity and humanism with order and discipline presupposes that those who have been denied their asylum application also promptly return to their home country. Today, it is not enough people who return after a rejection decision. The Center Party therefore considers that further measures need to be taken so that the return becomes more coherent, humane and efficient.

A person who has sought asylum and had their asylum application rejected can today apply for asylum again four years after the rejection decision has become final. The Government proposes that the prescription period be completely removed for those who remain in the country and that those who leave the country shall have their decision prescribed five years after the date of departure. If the decision is accompanied by a re-entry ban that runs at this point in time, the decision shall cease to apply only when the period for the re-entry ban expires.

An argument for extending the prescription period is that the system as it stands today creates incentives for the asylum seeker to stay away from the authorities and not return to the home country despite having received a rejection. Therefore, the Center Party has for a number of years now opened up to review the prescription period specifically to stimulate an increased return.

Just as the government points out, there is a possibility to apply for so-called execution barriers for those coming from a country where the security situation has changed rapidly. This could, for example, involve an escalation of a conflict in the home country or in parts of the home country. That possibility remains. But one of several differences between execution barriers and a new asylum application is that within a new application, one is assessed against the humanitarian basis, an assessment that is not made within the framework of execution barriers.

The humanitarian ground gives, among other things, certain children who have lived in Sweden their entire lives an opportunity to stay in their home country. When the possibility of a new application in Sweden is now removed, the opportunity for those children who have lived here their entire lives to obtain a residence permit on this ground also disappears. We consider that it is not proportionate.

A new asylum application also gives people who cannot return for practical reasons that they themselves cannot influence the possibility to stay in accordance with the humanitarian basis. These people often fall between the cracks, and it is important to give them a better opportunity to obtain a residence permit now that the prescription period is removed.

The Government also proposes that the possibility for those who have been denied their asylum application to, under certain conditions, be granted a residence permit due to work, so-called "track switching" (spårbyte), shall be removed. The system of track switching has in recent years been criticized for contributing to the exploitation of the asylum system, for example by persons who do not have grounds for asylum seeking asylum for the purpose of a track switch.

Centerpartiet takes this criticism very seriously. At the same time, the track change has provided an opportunity to stay for those who support themselves and contribute to making school, healthcare, and care better, and contribute to our ability to upgrade Swedish defense and invest in Swedish railways so that trains can run on time – or sometimes at all. And fundamentally, we believe it is reasonable that those who get up in the morning and work, contribute, and pay tax should be allowed to stay in Sweden. We therefore prefer that, as a first step, it is reviewed how the system for track change can be redesigned to be as purposeful as possible. Sweden needs everyone who wants and can work, because when Sweden works, Sweden is at its best.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The bill we are debating thus abolishes the so-called "track switching" and changes the rule on the prescription of deportation decisions. I intended initially to just briefly explain what these rules say and what role they play in practice.

The rule on track switching means that a person who comes to Sweden to seek asylum but who is then denied their asylum application can switch tracks to instead become a labor migrant and then have the opportunity to apply for a work permit from within the country.

This contradicts the main rule for labor migrants. The main rule states, as is known, that persons who wish to work in Sweden shall arrange their permits before they travel in.

The rule on the prescription of deportation decisions means that a decision that someone shall leave the country expires after four years. The person who has applied and then been denied can, after four years, apply only once more and then enter the system. This also applies even if the person does not present any new grounds. There is therefore no new reason to bring the matter up for review, but one can still enter the asylum system a second time.

I would say these two rules play two main roles in the farce that is usually called regulated immigration. That is to say, we have rules that set limits on how one can move to Sweden. That is true. But we simultaneously have other rules that make these first rules completely meaningless.

Mr. Speaker! What is actually the purpose of a rule stating that labor migrants should arrange their permits before they come here if one can in any case just enter illegally and then fill out a form and apply from within the country? And what is the purpose of deciding on deportation if a person only needs to obstruct for a period of four years, during which time they can also use the legal system and appeal decisions, in such a way that the decision becomes time-barred after four years and then the process can be started again?

The rules naturally become completely meaningless. That is to say, the real purpose of these two rules is for the left-wing parties to be able to look into a TV camera and say that they stand behind the regulated immigration, while behind the scenes they introduce other rules that make the regulated immigration's rules completely meaningless.

This is the core of the two changes that we are implementing today. But it is naturally not the only reason why we are now removing these rules.

It is also well known that, for example, track switching has been a proper Christmas present to those who commit crimes in the labor market. This is because people who are denied their asylum application but who can then switch tracks become completely dependent on the employer to be able to stay in Sweden – and that staying in Sweden in itself has a very high economic value for many. This has created an opportunity for employers to exploit people in a rather cynical way. This is another important reason why these rules must now be removed.

What do the left-wing parties say now when they actually have to discuss this issue in substance? Ordinarily, there isn't exactly much quality in the reasoning. The Left, the Green Party, and the Centre have slightly different reservations that for some reason they haven't managed to piece together jointly. I would still say that the spirit is roughly the same.

We can start by looking at reservation 1, which is Miljöpartiets. I read it aloud: "The government's proposal that the prescription period for removal decisions shall only begin to run after the asylum seeker has left the country means in practice that persons who, for various reasons, cannot leave Sweden will never be given a chance for a new primary review." This is typical of how Miljöpartiet totally throws the principles of the rule of law overboard as soon as an authority makes a decision that they do not like for purely ideological reasons.

The core of the asylum assessment is a single thing: Can the applicant return home safely and securely? Everyone affected by this rule has had their case assessed. Many do not want to return home, but that is something completely different. Nearly one hundred percent of those who will be affected by this rule can return home safely and securely.

I continue with the same reservation: "There is a lack of concrete estimates of how many removal decisions will actually be able to be executed in light of the changed prescription rules." First and foremost, it should be noted that the number of removals executed both by force and voluntarily has increased significantly. It has gone up by 40 percent during this government's term of office. It is still a proof that the political direction makes a big difference.

A calculation is missing here, and that is naturally because how the compulsory enforcement proceeds is determined by our contacts with third countries and the situation there. It is a number of factors that we do not fully control in the Swedish Riksdag. But it actually doesn't matter for this question. The main rule is, however, that persons who do not have the right to stay in Sweden shall return voluntarily.

Mr. Speaker! It is important to understand that nearly one hundred percent of the people we are talking about now can return voluntarily. Execution obstacles, i.e., that we cannot forcibly send a person back to certain countries because the home country does not cooperate, occur. But they do not prevent people from traveling home voluntarily.

There is almost no one who has had an asylum application denied in Sweden who is stuck here against their will. It happens entirely voluntarily. We know that, Mr. Speaker, because hundreds of thousands of people from these countries go home on vacation every year because it is pleasant in their home country. If one can go home on vacation, one can obviously follow a deportation decision and go home permanently. It is completely obvious.

I continue with the same reservation and read aloud again: "Since the government simultaneously excludes the possibility of a new fundamental review, there is an imminent risk that more people will break contact with the authorities and that the shadow society will grow." Once again, a total misunderstanding of what this is about. The root cause of why many do not comply with a decision that they should leave Sweden is precisely the possibility of a new review after four years. That is what makes people stay. It is completely obvious.

The shadow society has nothing to do with authority contacts. The shadow society consists of people who stay here illegally outside the legal system. It is bad by definition. The more of these people there are, the larger the shadow society is. The shadow society cannot be reduced by finding safety valves a bit further ahead, because that naturally causes more people to choose to enter the shadow society in order to be able to take advantage of the benefits later in the process. It is not rocket science. This should all politicians in the Swedish Riksdag understand.

I continue with reservation 7 regarding the track change from Vänstern and Miljöpartiet: ”The system also creates incentives for the applicant to clarify their identity, as it is a prerequisite for being allowed to work during the asylum period.” Often when one reads the left-wing parties' reservation texts, it is quite clear that they do not themselves understand what they or their officials are writing. I doubt that the members have written this themselves.

What has been written about incentives to strengthen one's identity means that there are a lot of people who can strengthen their identity but choose not to do so. Why? Well, it is naturally to delay and complicate the asylum investigation. Why do they do that? Well, it is naturally because they do not have any real grounds for protection. That is one hundred percent true. But it goes directly against the party line for both Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet.

The Green Party and the Left Party have always claimed that no one lies on their asylum application and that everyone who seeks asylum does so in a completely honest way and presents the reasons that exist. But why would we then need to create incentives for people to clarify their identity? If it were true as the Left and the Green Party otherwise say, those incentives naturally would not have been needed. But it is a bit refreshing that they say the silent part out loud. I actually appreciate that.

Finally, there is an argument among the reservations that deserves to be addressed in substance. It is also in reservation 7. Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet write: "Those who have a job should be able to switch tracks and become labor migrants. This would create an opportunity for persons with temporary protection under the mass exodus directive to stay in Sweden permanently." It is therefore about what happens to the Ukrainians. It is not an unimportant question.

The rule on switching status is not applicable to the Ukrainians in the current situation. They cannot apply for asylum but are here under the mass flight directive. This gives the right to stay in Sweden without the asylum grounds being examined. But what happens when the mass flight directive can eventually be phased out or deactivated? That is actually the interesting question here. It is not regulated in law. We in the Riksdag can also not tell the Swedish Migration Agency what they should do when applying the legal rules that exist.

A reasonable arrangement could be – if I were a representative I would at least argue in this way – that a person who is here under the mass flight directive and the mass flight directive is phased out while the person has a job, they should be able to apply for a permit from within the country according to Chapter 5, Section 15, Paragraph 11 of the Aliens Act. Regarding that rule, there is nothing in the preparatory works specifically about the mass flight directive, but it is intended for approximately this type of situation. I hope, therefore, that is how it will end. Otherwise, we can probably agree on a reasonable solution for this group. I do not think there will be any problems.

Finally, we have the Social Democrats, the uncrowned masters of political kabuki theater. S has no proposal of its own in this but refers to the fact that one of the proposals comes from a social democratically appointed investigation. That is entirely true. The investigation regarding the proposal on track switching was commissioned by the Social Democrats. But it is equally true that the investigation was commissioned in July 2022. After eight years in power and after an even longer period of constant warnings and reports that the track switching is a complete catastrophe, the Social Democrats chose to act – two months before the regular election. It was therefore hardly a priority issue, as it is usually called.

The measure that truly screams Social Democratic game theory is that the Social Democrats, in addition to appointing an inquiry into removing the track change, appointed a completely different inquiry to expand the track change. So, people sat – not in parallel in time, but one of them was finished before the other – at the Government Offices during the last mandate period and worked on two completely opposite proposals.

Mr. Speaker! In kabuki theater, it is important to be able to change masks quickly. But one can wonder why the Social Democrats did this complete hedging. It does not seem wise to have two investigations working in parallel but in diametrically opposite directions on the same issue. But it is naturally not difficult to understand. For the Social Democrats, migration policy is a tool to seize power and retain it – nothing else. They have no ideological stance of their own.

It is, therefore, quite obvious from a game-theoretical perspective that if the left-wing parties win, the Social Democrats will implement the Green Party's migration policy without reservations. In that case, it is important to have an investigation of this. But if one, on the other hand, loses the election, one can pretend that one wants to take responsibility for Sweden. In that case, it is good to have an investigation that signals that instead. The question that I believe the voters are interested in, or the question that the voters must somewhere answer, is how much of this theater one is willing to live with after the next election.

(Applause)

In this speech, Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating a number of proposals concerning more people living as undocumented for longer periods, or perhaps forever. We are also debating proposals that mean that thousands of people who work in Sweden and their family members will be deported from here.

We in Miljöpartiet think these proposals are bad, and we therefore move for their rejection.

I want to begin with the issue of "spårbyte" (track switching). Spårbyte is about asylum seekers who get jobs in Sweden being able to receive a work permit here without first traveling back to their home country, for example, Afghanistan. We in Miljöpartiet think it is a good arrangement that people who come to Sweden and seek asylum do not first have to travel back to the Taliban's Afghanistan in order to continue working at their job in Sweden. Therefore, we think that spårbyte is fundamentally a good arrangement.

It is correct, as several debaters have said, that there are also people who abuse this system simply to get to Sweden and work a little faster. This has been investigated by the Swedish National Audit Office, which has also recommended several measures to prevent exactly that fraud. But just as my colleague Jonny Cato from Centerpartiet explained earlier in the debate, we do not need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We in Miljöpartiet believe that we should fix what is wrong, close the loopholes, and prevent the fraud. But fundamentally, we believe that those who have come to Sweden and sought asylum and, during the time they are here, have obtained a job, should not have to go back, for example, to the Taliban's Afghanistan, to apply for a work permit from there in order to be able to continue working in their jobs in Sweden.

We also consider it very noteworthy in this context that the government has not listened to the Council on Legislation's criticism. The Council on Legislation notes that the proposal means that the deciding factor for whether an application for a change of status can be extended for someone who already has such a residence permit under the current provision is not at what point the alien applies for a temporary residence permit, but when the Swedish Migration Agency examines the application. From an equal treatment perspective, the Council on Legislation questions the appropriateness of letting an authority's processing times become decisive for whether an application should be handled according to the new or the older wording of the law. Even for reasons of legal certainty, an application that has been rejected before the entry into force should be able to be reviewed by a court, even if the review is delayed until after the provision has been repealed.

We think that these are views that the government should obviously have taken to heart, even if one disagrees on the track change. It means that people will now be deported from Sweden on grounds that are the same as those other people will be able to stay on, this solely depending on how long their cases have remained with Migrationsverket.

Mr. Speaker! Earlier in the debate, it was claimed by the Moderaterna that we do not care at all about the abuses that exist within the system. I think it is perfectly in order to disagree on things and have a substantive debate in the chamber of the Riksdag. But when we deliberately misunderstand those we do not agree with, it instead contributes to a completely unnecessary polarization of an already quite polarized debate.

I would therefore wish that we do our best to understand each other, and it is enough to read the first paragraph in the Miljöpartiet and Centerpartiet's reservation to understand what we actually think.

Mr. Speaker! The question of prescription and how long people should live as undocumented is perhaps the most central in this committee report. Today, it is the case that the person who has received a rejection of their asylum application because they have not been able to prove that there are probable grounds for persecution in the home country after four years has the opportunity to submit an application again. Almost a quarter of those who do so are then allowed to stay in Sweden. Over the past years, it is therefore several thousand people who first received a no but who, after a new review, have actually been granted asylum and a residence permit. The Swedish Migration Agency has then concluded that it is dangerous for them to return and that they are in need of protection.

We also have many people in Sweden who have their asylum applications rejected but who, in practical terms, never get the opportunity to return. During the time one is in Sweden with a rejection decision, one does not have the right to work, one does not have the right to study at a higher education, and one also does not have the right to have their livelihood provided in any other way, for example through social assistance. They end up in a lawless limbo.

With the government's proposal, this limbo can become lifelong for the persons concerned. There have been a number of proposals for some time in the so-called limbo investigation that attempt to address some of these deficiencies when there are practical enforcement obstacles and people cannot return, no matter how much they cooperate. It can, for example, be a case where you do not receive a passport from your former home country. That is the case with a family with three children born in Sweden whom I have met several times. They live in Sweden in limbo year after year, and the children have become teenagers here. With this proposal, they will continue to live in limbo, perhaps for the rest of their lives. Perhaps soon the second generation of children will be born into statelessness in Sweden.

For me and Miljöpartiet, this is completely unacceptable. It violates the most fundamental rights for children in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It completely contradicts every approach to the best interests of the child. Even the fact that this means that one cannot be reviewed on humanitarian grounds means that even more children will live their entire childhood in Sweden in this limbo. It is unacceptable.

Therefore, we in Miljöpartiet, although we primarily call for a rejection, have secondly placed ourselves behind the Centerpartiet's proposal for a valve for residence permits on humanitarian grounds.

Mr. Speaker! Another complicating factor is that the Swedish Migration Agency today basically does not take enforcement obstacles into account when conducting the asylum review. We in the Miljöpartiet consider this to be a major problem. If it is known from the beginning that a person will be impossible or nearly impossible to deport to their home country, the person should be granted a residence permit and be allowed to start their life, be granted permission to work and study.

This really must change now. The Swedish Migration Agency must take enforcement obstacles into account earlier – otherwise, we will see even more unreasonable situations where people end up in limbo year after year. This is, of course, completely appalling for the individuals involved. They can be moved around between the Migration Agency's accommodations from one year to the next without knowing anything about their future and without being able to decide over it or plan their lives.

This is also a terrible waste of human lives. I met a stateless Palestinian who had lived in Sweden for 13 years. During part of these 13 years, he had worked as a personal assistant, but when I met him, he no longer had the right to work here. We have a shortage of skilled personal assistants, and his user wanted nothing more than for him to be allowed to continue. But his life was instead put on pause. Waiting for what? Peace? Freedom for the Palestinian people?

If we look at history, we see that there is a risk that the wait will be terribly long. It is not justifiable. People should not have to live their lives without basic rights, least of all without the right to work and support themselves.

We also see major deficiencies in the handling of execution obstacles. This is now becoming the only valve, but execution obstacles do not mean a full review. This does not include the humanitarian basis. There is also no full possibility to appeal these decisions, which would be needed for it to be able to be called legally secure.

The sum of this proposal will be that the shadow society grows. More people with protection needs will continue to live in Sweden without rights and in enormous vulnerability. The vulnerability that undocumented people in Sweden live in is already appalling, and this government wants to make it even worse. It remains to be seen what type of reporting system they want to introduce, but every reporting provision will mean that the people who become stuck in limbo as undocumented will receive even fewer rights than they have today.

On behalf of the Green Party, I move for approval of reservation 1 and reservation 5. We hope that more parties realize the complete absurdity of legislation that places people in a limbo where they can neither return nor are given the opportunity to live a normal life with human rights, and where children are left without the rights that the Convention on the Rights of the Child should guarantee all children. Children such as Murhaf Hamid, who was born in Sweden and who has lived here for twelve years, are deprived of the opportunity to obtain a residence permit on the humanitarian grounds that we in the Green Party have fought for and will continue to fight for in the future.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In reservation 1, Miljöpartiet writes that track switching – that is, the rule that allows asylum seekers who have no grounds for asylum to instead become labor migrants – means that Sweden has strengthened its supply of skills, not least within the welfare sector.

Against this background, I would like to ask Annika Hirvonen: What percentage of the track-switchers work within the welfare sector?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is a very interesting question – we can pose it to RUT and get figures from there. I know many who work in elderly care, for example as an assistant nurse or a care assistant.

My view is that it is wrong that people who work in Sweden today should lose their residence permit and be forced to go to Afghanistan to apply for permission to come back to their job – in fact, completely regardless of whether they work in elderly care, work in a shop, or have some other profession. It is unreasonable. It is a waste of people and of competence.

To be honest, it also means complete life danger to return to Afghanistan. Sweden deportates many more people to Afghanistan than other EU countries do. These people are exposed to an incredible risk. We can imagine how it would feel to board a plane that does not meet EU standards and go to the Taliban to explain to them why one has lived in Europe, been westernized, and not at all followed the laws and rules that the Taliban consider to be morally correct.

Miljöpartiet believes that the asylum seekers who work in Sweden should be allowed to stay and continue living their lives here. However, there are flaws in the system that need to be corrected. There are people who have exploited this fundamentally reasonable system. It is a system that allows people who have sought asylum and obtained jobs to stay and continue working in Sweden without first traveling to the home country they are terrified of to apply for a work permit.

Miljöpartiet wants to plug the gaps that exist. There is already a list of proposals that the National Audit Office has submitted. Let us implement them!

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet wants to keep the track-switching because it provides competence within the welfare sector. I asked Annika Hirvonen how many track-switchers work within the welfare sector, but she had no clue. This is, if we are to be honest, the normal state of affairs when debating with Miljöpartister.

Annika Hirvonen thinks further that we should ask the Riksdag's investigation service. I have, however, good news: we do not need to do that. The answer to the question is on page 78 in the National Audit Office's review of the track change. I note that Annika Hirvonen herself raised this review in her speech. She has, however, obviously not read the report, because then she would know exactly how many people work within the welfare sector.

I thought we would go through this briefly.

Cleaning occupations are most common at 32 percent. We have absolutely no need to bring in cleaners from the other side of the world.

The second largest category is service, care, and security work. This includes people who work within welfare. These are predominantly care assistants, since one cannot get a professional license translated when changing tracks. Let us assume that these three categories are of equal size. That would mean that it is 5 percent of the track-switchers who work within welfare.

In 2023, which is the latest year for which we have complete figures, it was 575 people who were granted a change of track. That means we are talking about 28–30 care assistants who come through the change of track. Does Annika Hirvonen have any idea how many care assistants there are in Sweden? I take that as a no. 73,000 people work in this occupational category today. I myself have been a care assistant earlier in my life, so I know roughly what it involves. Does Annika Hirvonen think that the Swedish welfare would survive if we were to lose 28 people out of 73,000?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! If one is a Sweden Democrat, one only cares about Swedes and the Swedish welfare. One completely ignores the individuals behind it. One ignores those who lose their home care staff. Elderly care in Umeå, for example, already lost 50 people in November and is having difficulty finding anyone who can replace these people. It is difficult to find people who want to work there. One ignores these individuals, their children, and the people they live with, who also are being deported from here.

I really don't understand how one can think it is reasonable to deport a lot of people when we have a shortage of employees in the welfare sector. They can certainly – possibly – be allowed to return to Sweden if they apply for jobs from abroad.

Mr. Speaker! We have completely different starting points. Miljöpartiet protects both individuals, the welfare systems, and the competence supply of companies. The policy that the Tidö government pursues regarding labor immigration and track switching hits all of these. It hits welfare and Swedish companies. It destroys lives for individuals, both for those who are forced out of the country and for the colleagues and users in elderly care who are left without their coworkers. This is a policy that is economically senseless for Sweden. We become poorer as a country because of it. It also reduces growth. For me, it is an incomprehensible policy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The bill we are now debating concerns one of the steps in ensuring that migration policy is adapted to what is manageable for Sweden. An important part of this adaptation is a regulated and credible level of immigration to Sweden, but also that return is effective and that it is clear that a no is a no. After a legally secure review, an asylum seeker who has received a deportation decision shall be obliged to leave the country, but in today's Sweden we see many examples of people remaining after a denial of a decision.

Mr. Speaker! The bill we have on the table today involves new rules regarding when a removal decision ceases to be valid. According to today's rules, a removal decision is valid for four years after the decision becomes legally binding and can therefore no longer be appealed. When the decision has then ceased to be valid, there is an opportunity and a right to a new full review of the issue of residence permit.

This order creates a basis and a driving force to not follow the decision to leave Sweden but instead to stay away from enforcement despite having had one's grounds examined and received a rejection. In today's system, a new opportunity is indeed given to have one's case examined when the previous decision ceases to apply.

Today's agenda also means that the same application may need to be reviewed again by the Swedish Migration Agency and the courts several times, even if no new circumstances have emerged that actually justify the question being reviewed again. When a deportation decision is prescribed, the authorities' return work must also be interrupted. This process therefore implies an inefficient use of resources.

As mentioned earlier during the debate, approximately 25 percent of all asylum applications are made by persons who have already received a decision of rejection and should therefore leave Sweden, but for whom the decisions have ceased to be valid because they have lapsed.

In the proposal, it is emphasized that today's regulatory framework can lead to families with children attempting to avoid enforcement by avoiding contact with the authorities, which in turn risks resulting in the children and the rest of the family living under very pressured conditions for a long period. In my opinion, it is important that the rules are changed so that the basis and the incentive to avoid enforcement are removed.

Mr. Speaker! The debate has shown what is up for change. The first change is that a removal decision shall cease to apply after five years instead of four years, and this period begins to run after the asylum seeker has left the country in accordance with the decision. We are therefore extending the prescription period by one year. But the important difference – and the clear signal to all who seek asylum – is that the removal decision will never be prescribed as long as one remains in Sweden after having received a denial decision. It will therefore no longer be any reason to stay hidden in Sweden for a number of years for the purpose of achieving a new review of the residence permit. The change also means that one leaves Sweden according to the decision made, which means that the asylum seeker must travel to the country determined by the authorities.

Mr. Speaker! The bill also contains new rules regarding re-entry bans. In connection with an asylum seeker receiving a decision that he or she must leave the country, it can also be decided that the person is given a certain period of time to comply with the decision voluntarily. When such a period for voluntary departure has been determined but the foreigner has not left Sweden within that period, a re-entry ban may be decided. This means a ban on returning to the Schengen area within a certain period.

The re-entry ban is decided today for one year in such a situation. This is a significantly shorter period than in other cases where a re-entry ban is decided. In the bill, it is therefore proposed that the re-entry ban shall be able to be decided for five years, even when a time for voluntary departure has not been followed, or longer if the foreigner poses a serious threat to public order and security.

Mr. Speaker! Another change being implemented with this bill is that the system of track switching is abolished. The general rule today is that a residence permit must be applied for and granted before entry to Sweden, but there are exceptions. One such exception in today's system is that the person who has been denied an asylum application under certain conditions can be granted a residence permit for work without having to leave the country. This exception is called track switching.

The intention when track switching was introduced was that those who had established themselves on the Swedish labor market during the asylum process but received a rejection would not have to return to their home country to obtain a work permit, but could instead make the application in Sweden. But it has unfortunately turned out, as has been mentioned in the debate and among other things in the National Audit Office's analysis, that the possibility of track switching has entailed great risks of fraud and abuse. Many of those who apply for track switching come from countries that are considered so-called safe countries of origin, which means that persons from there usually do not have the right to asylum. This indicates that the asylum system is being exploited by persons who want access to the Swedish labor market.

The possibility of switching tracks also means that the endpoint in the asylum process becomes unclear. There is a risk that a no is not perceived as a no, which affects the return work negatively. It can also lead to people being exploited and suffering on the labor market. In the bill, it is therefore proposed that the system of switching tracks be removed.

Mr. Speaker! It is relevant that those who wish to work in Sweden shall use the regulatory framework and the system that applies for labor migration. It is also an important point for achieving a sustainable and long-term migration policy. We Christian Democrats therefore demand, like a majority in the committee, approval of the government's proposal and thereby also rejection of all motions.

I can finally state that this debate, with its exchanges of remarks, is a repeat of how it has looked in this chamber during the majority of the debates during this mandate period.

The government is implementing the necessary course change for the migration policy. Today's bill emphasizes that one shall have the right to seek asylum, but that a no is a no and shall be complied with in practical action. Until now, the government's proposed changes regarding migration have mostly had support from the Social Democrats in this chamber, and today's bill is another example of this. It receives full support from the Social Democrats.

But as in previous debates, the other opposition parties are to varying degrees opposed to the changes being proposed. This consideration and the exchanges of remarks show, as much as anything else, that the opposition does not have a united line. The Left, the Center Party, and the Green Party are in different ways against changing migration policy in the direction that is required for our country, while the Social Democrats follow the government's direction in many decisions.

One can ask what the direction will be after a possible change of government in 2026, which hopefully will not happen. The uncertainty continues.

I can state that Ola Möller, as a Social Democrat, has been proud and confident in the debate – S is, as usual, the foundation of all good that has come in decisions regarding the migration area. But one can then ask: What was it that prevented the Social Democrats from implementing this during the eight years in Rosenbad, when they had the opportunity? What stopped them? We can well state that the exchanges of remarks today perhaps provide part of the answer. One wants to, but one cannot.

There are clear messages from party comrades to Ola Möller. Lawen Redar stated over a year ago that we had the wrong course in migration policy and that it needs to be changed. One can truly ask: What will the reality be if S takes responsibility again?

Mr. Speaker! We Christian Democrats belong to the majority in Sweden who have concluded that Sweden's migration policy needs to be changed. We now see how the government, through decisions and inquiries, delivers based on the trust that was given in the 2022 election.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Some of the groups that will be hit particularly hard by the government's proposal that people can become undocumented for an entire lifetime are people for whom there are already established procedural flaws in the asylum process.

I understand that there are many complicated words here for those of you who have not followed the debate. But in short, it is about converts, LGBTQI persons and children. They are some of the vulnerable asylum seekers for whom we know there are rule-of-law deficiencies.

RFSL's investigation shows, for example, that the Swedish Migration Agency sets high requirements on a person's ability to verbally express their thoughts and feelings when they realized they were, for example, homosexual. It is also about shame and feelings of guilt in order to be able to receive asylum and protection from persecution in the home country.

For converts, it is the same thing. It is not enough with an engagement in, for example, a church to show that one is Christian or certificates from pastors and priests. They are hardly assigned any evidentiary value at all. It is the asylum seeker's story and the ability to put words to thoughts and feelings when one came to the realization of one's new faith that decides.

That is why these specific individuals are often among those who receive asylum after four years and the prescription of the first asylum decision. After four years without oppression, they have had a completely different opportunity to have spoken with others. They have acquired a vocabulary for everything that was forbidden. How do the Christian Democrats view that group's increased vulnerability?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We both share the commitment to this group. However, I can state that Annika Hirvonen was part of the seven of eight years of support for the government that had the responsibility to ensure that a legally secure review would take place, the responsibility to ensure that people do not end up in a shadow society, and the responsibility to ensure that children do not have to be afraid in the morning of being discovered because they are illegally in the country.

It can be stated that during the seven years we did not make any progress on that front. I can say with pride that we are now taking new steps. The Government Offices showed in its report that legal certainty is not equal and sufficient for precisely those groups mentioned, converts and LGBTQI persons.

I can state that during the entire previous parliamentary term, my predecessor in the Social Affairs Committee, Hans Eklind, pointed out that those issues were important to highlight. But it did not become a majority for a decision, because the government did not want to implement it.

Now we can state that it clearly says in the regulatory letter to the Swedish Migration Agency that legal certainty shall be improved for precisely those groups. It says so explicitly. That is what we have succeeded in achieving after our years in government.

I can state that it is important that it is a legally secure review. A review must take place where one's asylum grounds are examined. If you get a yes, you may stay; if you get a no, you must return to the country you come from.

It will be difficult to look into a person's inner self and judge whether they are a convert. Sweden needs to become much better at this. We need to dare to speak much more about how, for example, faith functions in a life.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! On that, we agree, Ingemar Kihlström. The problem is that the bill you are now presenting from Kristdemokraterna, Moderaterna and Liberalerna means that those people who are not believed and who are wrongly given a no in the future will not have a second chance.

It hits particularly hard on these groups, on converts and LGBTQI refugees. We know that after four years in Sweden in safety and in freedom from oppression, one has a greater chance of having acquired the vocabulary to explain and prove to the Migration Agency who one is.

Another group that will truly be deprived of their rights with the proposal are children. With the proposal, children will be able to be born in Sweden and live an entire life in limbo and become permanently undocumented.

I asked the Social Democrats. They said they think it is okay for children to be able to live an entire life as undocumented, being born and dying in the Swedish Migration Agency's accommodations, if the Swedish Migration Agency cannot execute the decisions.

I ask the Christian Democrats the same. Do the Christian Democrats think it is reasonable that children who are born in Sweden and raised here should not be able to obtain a residence permit on humanitarian grounds at the age of 12 or 15?

Do the Christian Democrats think that people who are denied, but for whom the decisions that they should return to their home country can never be enforced, should be allowed to be born and die at the Swedish Migration Agency's return center?

How many generations of undocumented people do the Christian Democrats think we can have in this country?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that after eight years of governing with the Social Democrats, with seven years of support from the Green Party, we have a situation where up to 100,000 people live in a shadow and parallel society.

It is not worthy of a country for children to be insecure. I do not think it is a good situation to hide for four years, that every time there is a knock on the door, one is afraid of being torn away from their life.

It is about us having a migration policy and a system that promotes having one's case reviewed. That is something we completely agree on. We need to have a legally secure review of asylum grounds.

We make decisions in this chamber regarding a policy that means: These people have the right to stay, and these people must return. This must also be followed in practical action.

We now have a system that encourages people to hide, with the insecurity and risk of exploitation that applies to everyone. We can always speculate about what salary one can get if one lives here in the shadow society and is not supposed to be here.

Naturally, we shall ensure that people return. We need to do much more of that. We can state that after eight years with the Social Democrats' government, we did not succeed. Now we are taking bold steps and finding ways where we use both the EU's and our own aid to ensure that the country accepts.

It is also important to emphasize that it is a parental responsibility. If one comes to a country, seeks asylum and receives a no, is it not then the parental responsibility to create a safer existence for one's children?

I cannot see that it is creating a situation that is secure when one hides in a shadow society for four years. We are creating a situation where people return to a country and can seek new asylum. There is, therefore, a possibility to get a review again.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is not good to hide, the member just said. I agree. It is just that after four years, 21–29 percent receive residence permits in Sweden.

Please provide the Swedish text you would like me to translate.

So secure is Swedish migration policy. That is why people hide. It is a small valve we have in migration policy. Now it is being removed and people are being made permanently undocumented. I think that is a disgrace. I still want to ask the member: What evidence does the member have that more people will now remove themselves?

Regarding this legislation, the investigators of the proposal themselves have stated that it is not possible to estimate whether it will have any effect on an increased return. Studies in the field show the opposite effect. The Bar Association describes that their lawyers' clients are clear that people will still remain in the country. The Red Cross describes that people will not leave the country. The government's proposal presents no support for the claim that the incentives to return increase. Asylrättscentrum, with 30 years of experience, says that this will not work.

The only thing that will happen as a result of the bill is that people will live as permanent undocumented persons in Sweden, and this is because of the government, the Sweden Democrats and the Social Democrats, who are deepening and worsening the shadow society.

The question is: Why? Research says that it doesn't work, knowledge says that it doesn't work, and experiences and studies say that it doesn't work. Why do you do this to people?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Tony Haddou, for the commitment to the issue!

We do not share this view. It can be stated that the system we have today, where people can apply for a new asylum review after four years, after eight years, and after twelve years, creates a system where people, both adults and children, live in a shadow society without just the rights that Tony Haddou speaks about.

A system that promotes having one's case reviewed again despite the facts not having changed obviously motivates individuals. One does not need to leave the country. One can live in the shadow society and have one's case reviewed again and again.

With this proposal, for which we have a large majority in this chamber, we give clear signals. It will be a legally secure review with a yes or no regarding grounds for asylum. If one receives a no, one must leave the country and perhaps the Schengen area. One can be issued a re-entry ban. This does not prevent one from applying for asylum again if the circumstances change.

We can observe that of the asylum seekers we have in Sweden today, 25 percent originally receive a yes and 75 percent receive a no. Of those who are processed, it is therefore approximately one quarter who re-apply.

We are a large majority in the chamber who see that we need to make a change. The policy we have pursued for a long time has not solved the problem, but rather it has created a shadow society.

I could ask a question back to Tony Haddou. Tony's party supports the Social Democrats. If it were to become a different government – is your requirement for giving it support that one returns to the policy we have today and which will be changed on April 1st?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! We are driving the Left Party's migration policy. It cannot come as a shock to the member.

The problem is not the promotion of staying. The problem is that people cannot return and remain in the shadow society. That is the big problem.

We do not share this view, as the member says. My view is based on the research, the experiences, the studies and the knowledge that exists in the field. All referral bodies have said that this does not work but instead pushes people into undocumented status. People will not return because of the proposal, but instead they end up in permanent undocumented status. The proposal deepens and worsens the shadow society we have in Sweden.

This is simply incomprehensible. I hear the rhetoric that no should be a no. But that is not how reality looks! One example is girls and women from Afghanistan, who were first given a no. But overnight they received amnesty; it became a yes. Circumstances change. That is how it is.

To further demonstrate that this does not work, I can say that the government has already tried it. During the previous parliamentary term, they removed the LMA legislation and changed and tightened it so that asylum seekers who receive a deportation decision lose their housing, support, and studies. They lose everything and end up completely outside the systems.

It did not mean that we got fewer undocumented people in Sweden. On the contrary, it became uncontrolled, and one no longer knew where people lived. It was very foolish to do it this way, because one no longer had any control over people.

Studies have thus shown that this does not work. The head of the border police section at the Police Authority and the former process manager for returns at the Swedish Migration Agency have expressed that the change of LMA has complicated the enforcement work because authorities lose contact with people. And what we are voting on today will cause one to lose contact completely with people because they become permanently undocumented.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! What Tony Haddou states is correct. We disagree. And that is what one should do in this chamber. Our arguments shall be contested.

We are a large majority who observe that the migration we have had in our country has been too great. We need to adapt to the level that we can integrate. It must be a long-term sustainable migration policy.

Now we are turning the ship around. We are creating asylum application centers. We will ensure that it becomes a short process when one applies for asylum. Then one receives their decision, and if it is a no, one must return. Here, Sweden needs to get better at both helping people, motivating them, and ensuring that they return.

We cannot have a system like the one today, which in some way creates a basis for people to stay away and hide with their children – with the insecurity and risk of exploitation that it entails – while waiting for a new chance to apply despite the fact that nothing has changed.

All the hundreds of thousands of people we are now discussing do not, for example, come from Afghanistan. We can state that we have a system that rewards people staying in Sweden and seeking asylum again and again. Then one lives in a shadow society without rights.

We want to create clear directives, and we also see that the changes are now yielding results. Sweden's asylum reception is significantly lower now than it was during the eight years we had a different government. We are taking the steps that are needed. We do not agree, Tony Haddou, but we will continue our work of change.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! We are now approaching the end of the debate regarding the bill dealing with issues concerning the extension of the prescription period for removal decisions, the abolition of track switching, and certain issues regarding re-entry bans.

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin with the issue of prescription. The current order states that a legally binding deportation decision expires after four years, regardless of whether the person has left the country or not. The person who stays away from the authorities has thus been able to wait out the system to then apply again. It is not a reasonable order that the person who defies the authority's decision and stays in Sweden upon a rejection receives a new review after only a few years.

The consequence of this has been that people are forced to live hidden in a shadow society in the hope that the deportation decision will lapse and the conditions will change upon a new review. That situation is, as said, not sustainable, neither for the individual in the long run nor for society as a whole.

With the new proposal we are now putting forward, the prescription period will instead begin to run from the day the person actually leaves the country, and it then applies for five years. In this way, we remove the incentives that exist today to go underground to await an automatic prescription.

The measure has a clear signaling effect: If one has received a rejection of their asylum application, the intention is that they should return. At the same time, the legally secure valves that actually exist for obstacles to enforcement are maintained. This could, for example, involve a serious illness or new, substantial grounds for protection that have arisen after the decision. Thus, the special circumstances can be handled without our migration law opening up a large loophole for those who more or less choose to ignore Sweden's legislation.

Clarifying that a rejection means a rejection creates more straightforward messages for the individual, while at the same time our authorities get better opportunities to follow up on the decisions. Moving forward, resources can instead be allocated to a greater extent to helping those who are entitled to protection as well as to a better reception.

Mr. Speaker! I come now to the question of the abolition of the so-called "track switching." When this possibility was introduced in 2008, the idea was that it should be a valve for individuals who during the asylum process had established themselves on the labor market. They would thus be able to switch tracks from asylum to a work permit. It was believed then that this would occur on a very small scale, but when we look at it now, we see that the outcome was something completely different. It became much larger than what was predicted from the beginning.

This has been previously debated in this chamber based on a report from the Swedish National Audit Office, where several risks were pointed out: that the individual is exploited in the labor market, that the asylum processes themselves are unnecessarily prolonged, and that one simply takes in low-skilled labor through the asylum route, despite low or no grounds for protection.

By now abolishing this track, we avoid the asylum process being used for purposes other than seeking asylum. If one wants to come to Sweden to work, one can instead apply for a permit via the regular work permit market, in the same way as all other labor migrants.

Mr. Speaker! The third part of the bill concerns re-entry bans in certain cases. The main rule today is that if one does not leave Sweden within the voluntary deadline announced by the authority, a one-year re-entry ban is issued. The government's new order means that the re-entry ban shall more clearly be able to amount to five years, or more if the person is considered to be a serious threat to public order or our security.

Instead of today's procedure where a one-year re-entry ban applies in all cases, there will now be a proportionate assessment based on an individual evaluation. This could, for example, involve how long it is reasonable for the ban should apply. If the person has posed a security risk or previously committed a serious breach of the re-entry conditions, one can now have a longer ban. Such a nuanced assessment with clearer frameworks increases both efficiency and legal certainty.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to take the opportunity to move for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! When one listens to the Liberals and the other government parties, it becomes very clear that they believe it is very simple – that reality looks as if if you receive a rejection and do not have the possibility to apply again, you will automatically leave Sweden.

Reality is much more complex than that. Just now during the debate, I received an email from a man who told me about a friend who has been deported three times to three different countries. Each time, he had to be brought back to Sweden because no country would accept to take him. The family is now living on social welfare. The children were born here. He is not allowed to work. The situation is completely desperate and unreasonable. Enormous costs have been incurred for these flights.

This man is not alone. There are many asylum seekers who have been refused, who have remained for years upon years at Migrationsverket – that is, many times without hiding – and tried to make their way to their home countries. Still, it is not possible.

The statistics show that it is not the case that a no is always a no. In almost a quarter of the cases in recent years, people have been granted asylum or a residence permit in Sweden after prescription. When four years have passed, they have thus been able to show that it is life-threatening to return to the home country.

With the government's policy, more people will end up in a lifelong limbo. It is unreasonable.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I did not experience this as a question but perhaps more as a statement.

What we can conclude after this long debate, which has now lasted for two and a half hours, is that the opposition constantly claims that time-limited validity for a rejection decision is a safety net for those whose home country situation worsens or who can find new humanitarian reasons. But let us also remember that the laws we already have, which are presented in the bill, with specific rules on obstacles to enforcement, mean that new, relevant reasons for residence permits can be examined. We do not lack the legal mechanisms today. If new reasons arise, one can have their case examined.

The problem with automatic prescription is that it encourages people to avoid our authorities. They hide, wait four years, and hope for a new review without any actual circumstances having changed. That in itself is not legally secure. It is rather undermining clear, legally binding decisions.

We must have transparency and predictability in our system. Our proposal promotes exactly this. The message is that a rejection shall be a rejection. It stands firm if no new circumstances arise. In this way, we pool our common resources to actually help those with genuine protection needs, rather than continuing in the same old rut which has actually only benefited one thing, namely the shadow society.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! If we look at the provision on obstacles to enforcement, which the Liberals thus see as the safety valve, we can observe that it does not cover the humanitarian basis. If you are, for example, a child who was born in Sweden and has lived in Sweden for many years, perhaps up until the age of upper secondary school, you will become permanently undocumented under this law.

Why do the Liberals vote no to the proposal that there should be such a humanitarian valve in any case for children, who have never chosen anything in terms of where they should be born or which country should want them?

If we also look at the legal certainty in the assessment of execution barriers, we see that it is lacking. There is an investigation with many proposals to close some of the gaps regarding practical execution barriers. We from Miljöpartiet believe that a central issue is that these assessments must always be able to be appealed to court. That is not the case today. In that case, we do not meet the basic requirements for legal certainty.

There are many things one could do if, for example, the Liberals want to remove the possibility of prescription but have safety valves for all those cases where it was either wrong from the beginning or where the circumstances have changed so that people actually need asylum. Why do the Liberals vote no to that? Do the Liberals, for example, like the Social Democrats pointed out, think that children should be able to be born in Sweden and live an entire life here in undocumented status?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I want to emphasize that I believe the human suffering will increase if we signal that the person who hides may potentially be allowed to stay after a few years, even though their asylum application has been rejected. If we constantly give the impression that one just has to wait until the decision expires, if that mentality becomes a functioning strategy, we only encourage people to go underground and end up in a shadow society where the risk of exploitation in various forms is unimaginably great. It is not a reasonable way forward.

What we are offering instead is a clear process where those who actually have grounds for protection or strong humanitarian circumstances can have them examined. In that case, we have this system of execution barriers, just as I and many others in the debate have mentioned earlier. But if one lacks grounds to be here, one shall return. It is an extremely important principle.

Then it is important that we do it so correctly, so clearly and as early as possible for the person whose asylum application is being examined.

In this way, we minimize the long-term suffering for these individuals, which the member expresses and which I sympathize with. But when we link the prescription period to the actual departure, it becomes a more efficient return, and it becomes easier to plan. This, in the long run, becomes more humane.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! The debate is somewhat incomprehensible. The government representatives refuse to see the problem. Now we heard, for example, that the return shall be streamlined by increasing the incentives, and so on. But with what evidence?

I have asked this question to two government representatives, and now to the third, and I am getting no answers. The consideration and the investigator show no evidence that streamlining increases incentives. The government has not presented anything. The only thing that exists is a rhetoric that has nothing to do with reality.

There is research and decades of experience that say this does not work. These austerity measures have been tried year after year. One has tried to tighten LMA many times, and it has not become better. The today's four-year prescription period was previously two years, and extending it has not helped either. The austerity measure does not work.

Research and experience say that people risk withdrawing further from society. The Member of Parliament says that if one receives a rejection, one shall be deported. I have previously asked the following question to government representatives but have not received an answer: People who have lived here for six, eight, ten, twelve, or sixteen years with a no, but who still cannot return – what should they do?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! It has been said several times during the debate, but it bears repeating again, namely that the current system of automatic prescription after four years, regardless of whether the person has left the country or not, signals that it practically pays to remain hidden.

But who benefits from this? Yes, it is not the individuals who are forced to live without rights. Nor is it society, which loses control over who stays here. Definitely not our administrative processes and our legislation, which are totally undermined when decisions are not complied with.

Just as the member mentions here, things in our global environment change, and it can happen quickly. In cases where a conflict or a full-scale war breaks out between different countries, a deportation decision must be reassessed. The legislation allows for this.

What is the Left's alternative? It feels more like you want a form of open borders. Is it the upcoming government alternative's proposal for migration policy that there shouldn't even be any asylum process, and that whoever wants to can come here? That is the consequence of what is being said.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I think we should look at the issue in a serious way. Vänsterpartiet has never expressed that. I presented practical implementation obstacles earlier in the debate. One must have a greater chance of being granted a residence permit if one cannot be deported. The problem is that the government does not agree to it. That is Vänsterpartiets policy. Then it was made clear.

The excuses we have heard for nearly three hours are poor. Instead, tell us what people should do if they have stayed here for 16 years and cannot be deported. No government representative wants to take responsibility for the shadow society. You engage in a rhetoric, but you conduct a policy that forces people into permanent statelessness. We will be having this debate again in a few years, and the government will say that there is a shadow society. Yes, that is because you have pushed people there.

I have also been told here that it pays to stay hidden. One is forced into it, and that is the problem when one cannot be deported. That is when the situation the member referred to arises, namely to review deportation decisions. Yes, that could be done, but now it cannot be done with this legislation. That is the problem.

We have debated for several hours, and the government cannot acknowledge the problem at all. This bill will not increase the incentives; instead, this bill will cause people to live permanently undocumented. They have not answered even once what people should do. They get a no, but they cannot be deported. They have no chance in this system. What are people to do who have been forced to live like this for so many years?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Let us state that when someone comes here seeking asylum, an assessment must take place on correct grounds. One has an opportunity to appeal, and new circumstances can be raised if they are relevant. This occurs, as it does today, through various provisions on execution barriers. If changes arise in the home country or other compelling reasons, a reassessment can take place. But to let an asylum rejection automatically lapse after four years, even if nothing new has emerged, only creates false hopes for the individuals.

The message becomes that if you stay away, it will work out anyway. It will not be a secure order in our migration policy. On the contrary, a clear line is needed where rejections are not prescribed if one stays illegally. If one receives a rejection but there are new relevant reasons, there are procedures for that. Otherwise, one should simply return.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)